§ MR. LEAMYasked Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, If he will request the Land Commissioners, in those cases in which they are called on under the eighth section of the Land Act to place a value on the interest of a tenant, to ascertain if the tenant has purchased his interest from his predecessor, and in every case in which the tenant has so purchased, to state, in the Returns hereafter to be presented to the House, the amount of the purchase money paid by the tenant, as well as the value placed on the tenancy by the Court?
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)My 883 right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary has ascertained that, while in these cases the purchase-money alleged to have been paid by the tenant would most probably form part of the evidence, yet it cannot always be ascertained with certainty by the Court, and the Commissioners, therefore, cannot undertake to state it in their Returns.
§ MR. HEALYasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether his attention has been called to the case of Cullen, tenant, Bunbury, landlord, reported in the "Freeman's Journal" of the 24th instant, in which Judge O'Hagan commented on the "extreme difficulty of the task imposed on the Land Commission" by section eight, sub-section five of the Land Act, which requires the Court, on application, to fix a specified value of a tenancy with a view to a subsequent sale, and expressed a wish that he could, if possible, evade the difficult task thus imposed on the Court; whether he is aware that the same difficulty has arisen before the Sub-Commissions all over Ireland, and resulted in extreme divergence of practice and procedure among those bodies; whether it is the case that one Sub-Commission has decided that its duty, under the circumstances referred to, is to fix the highest market value of the tenancy as the specified value, while Mr. Justice O'Hagan has expressed an opinion that the specified value should not be the highest market value; that another Sub-Commission was in the habit of fixing, as the specified value, the maximum amount of compensation for disturbance which the tenant would be entitled to if arbitrarily evicted, and without any reference to the tenant's improvements, but was subsequently compelled to change this practice; that one of the Sub-Commissions has refused to fix a specified value at all, unless specific evidence on the point is offered, while all the other Sub-Commissions fix the value without any evidence on the point having been offered, and discourage the practice of offering such evidence; whether it is the case that the Lord Chancellor and the Master of the Rolls, in their respective judgments in the ease of Adams v. Dun-seath, expressed contrary opinions as to the meaning of the phrase "true value" of a tenancy; whether it is a fact that the power of fixing a specified value does not apply at all when a holding is sub- 884 ject to the Ulster Custom; and, whether, having regard to the difficulties and contradictions which section eight, sub-section five of the Land Act has given rise to, the Government will take steps to have it repealed?
MR. GLADSTONEI am afraid I could not give a satisfactory and full answer to the hon. Member's Question within the proper limits of an answer to a Question; but I shall do the best in my power. It is quite true that Judge O'Hagan has commented on the difficulty of the task referred to—namely, the task imposed on the Commissioners by Section 8, sub-section 5, of the Land Act, which contemplates the fixing of the value of a tenancy during a statutable term. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman intended to ascribe the use of the word "evade" to Judge O'Hagan—probably he did not—but Judge O'Hagan does not admit that he applied any such word in reference to any provision of the Act of Parliament. Moreover, he did state that as between the Commissioners and the Sub-Commissioners there is no complete understanding yet established as to the rule of procedure in dealing with that particular sub-section; and I may remind the hon. Member that, although he himself took a very active—and I must say a most highly-informed part—in the discussion of this Bill, yet there was no discussion in the House on this sub-section, so that the Sub-Commissioners have not the advantage of such guidance as possibly in some cases they may be able to draw from the lengthened debates in Parliament. Of course, there must be further official information before it can be stated whether there has been that "extreme divergence of practice" which the hon. Gentleman refers to; but the matter will be borne in mind with a view to a full and satisfactory reply. With regard to the statement that Mr. Justice O'Hagan had expressed an opinion that the specified value should not be the highest value, Justice O'Hagan's expression was that the specified value was to be held to be the true value, and I do not know that I could add anything to that statement of fact. I am not here to justify or explain any expression the Judge might use; nor would the Judge be a party to my undertaking one course or the other. With regard to the fifth point, we be- 885 lieve that it is not the case; but we have heard that one Sub-Commissioner has taken "specified value" as meaning the maximum compensation for disturbance, plus the compensation for improvements. With regard to the sixth point contained in the close of the third paragraph, the answer is in the affirmative, and appeals on the subject are now pending. With regard to the seventh point, the Lord Chancellor took the "true value" to mean what the holding would bonâ fide bring in the open market if sold to an unobjectionable person; and the Master of the Rolls stated the "true value" could not be the market value, but what, having regard to the interests of landlord and tenant respectively under this code, would be the true value as between them. With respect to the eighth point contained in the last paragraph but one, the answer is simply, "Yes, it is a fact;" and with respect to the ninth point, I must say that is a matter which I think could not be entered upon in answer to a Question; but there will be an early opportunity of again referring to it and of discussing it in the House.
§ In reply to Mr. BIGGAR,
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)said, he was not aware that Mr. Bomford was still a Sub-Commissioner acting in the county Cavan. He was under the impression Mr. Bomford was not.
§ MR. HEALYWill the right hon. and learned Gentleman state whether the Members of this House will get any official information as to the names of the Sub-Commissioners and their districts?
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)The new ones is it?
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)They have all been published from time to time. [Cries of "Where, where?" and "Order!"] I shall ascertain and inform the hon. Member.